Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/gnome-pomodoro.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/gnome-pomodoro-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: mbooth Description: This GNOME utility helps to manage time according to Pomodoro Technique. It intends to improve productivity and focus by taking short breaks. NOTE: This is a package rename review due to upstream project name change: gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro --> gnome-pomodoro You can see the diff versus the old package here: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/diff_from_g-s-e-p.patch Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74623453
Package Review ============== This is a package rename review. The spec looks good. A few queries below: Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ^ gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libactions.so gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libdark-theme.so gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libgnome.so gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libsounds.so ^ These are private plugins and in a private directory under %{_libdir}, so they're OK. gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/libgnome-pomodoro.so /usr/lib64/libgnome-pomodoro.so /usr/lib64/libgnome-pomodoro.so.0 /usr/lib64/libgnome-pomodoro.so.0.0.0 ^ I expect this shared library is also not meant as system library either. These files could be moved to the %{_libdir}/gnome-pomodoro directory too, but I'll leave that decision up to you. The unversioned file/symlink can also be removed, since it isn't (shouldn't be?) required by the app to run. If it is meant to be used as a system library, it'll have to go into a -devel package, of course. - The guidelines suggest that the obsoletes should use a hard-coded epoch:version-release: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages says: " Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR $provEVR refers to an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple the original unchanged package would have had if it had been version or release bumped. You usually use macros here because the provides EVR should continue to go up as the renamed package advances in version and release. $obsEVR is an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple arranged so that there is a clean upgrade path but without gratuitously polluting the version space upwards. You usually do not use macros for this as you're simply trying to advance beyond the last known release under the old name. " Not a blocker, also up to you. - Does dbus-common need to be added as Requires since it owns the dbus system directories? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_also_owned_by_a_package_implementing_required_functionality_of_your_package ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 138 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1998517-gnome-pomodoro/licensecheck.txt ^ There's the one file that's GPLv2+. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/dbus-1/services ^ These are owned by dbus-common. Does this need to be added as Requires? (it may get pulled in with gnome-shell etc.?) Are we in this category? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_also_owned_by_a_package_implementing_required_functionality_of_your_package [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/gnome- pomodoro(gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro), /usr/lib64/gnome- pomodoro/plugins(gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro), /usr/share/gnome- pomodoro(gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro), /usr/share/gnome- pomodoro/sounds(gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro), /usr/share/gnome- shell/extensions/pomodoro.in(gnome-shell-extension- pomodoro) ^ Replacing this package, so we're OK. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. ^ Note on Obsolete: ... made above. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ^ Note on requiring package for dbus directory ownership made above. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6461440 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-pomodoro-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.rpm gnome-pomodoro-debuginfo-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.rpm gnome-pomodoro-debugsource-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.rpm gnome-pomodoro-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.src.rpm gnome-pomodoro.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libdark-theme.so gnome-pomodoro.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libgnome-pomodoro.so gnome-pomodoro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-pomodoro 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gnome-pomodoro-debuginfo-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libactions.so gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libdark-theme.so gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libgnome.so gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/gnome-pomodoro/plugins/libsounds.so gnome-pomodoro: /usr/lib64/libgnome-pomodoro.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gnome-pomodoro/gnome-pomodoro/archive/gnome-4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d7e6a8e707c2e4d3860a862d4b11fca2dfe91712d15a7fe0897f3a2e252483a6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d7e6a8e707c2e4d3860a862d4b11fca2dfe91712d15a7fe0897f3a2e252483a6 Requires -------- gnome-pomodoro (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell hicolor-icon-theme libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcanberra.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-pomodoro.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgom-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpeas-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gnome-pomodoro-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-pomodoro-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gnome-pomodoro: application() application(org.gnome.Pomodoro.desktop) gnome-pomodoro gnome-pomodoro(x86-64) gnome-shell-extension-pomodoro libactions.so()(64bit) libdark-theme.so()(64bit) libgnome-pomodoro.so.0()(64bit) libgnome.so()(64bit) libsounds.so()(64bit) metainfo() metainfo(org.gnome.Pomodoro.appdata.xml) gnome-pomodoro-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) gnome-pomodoro-debuginfo gnome-pomodoro-debuginfo(x86-64) libactions.so-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libdark-theme.so-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libgnome-pomodoro.so.0.0.0-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libgnome.so-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsounds.so-0.19.2-0.2.fc36.x86_64.debug()(64bit) gnome-pomodoro-debugsource: gnome-pomodoro-debugsource gnome-pomodoro-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1998517 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Python, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/gnome-pomodoro.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/gnome-pomodoro-0.19.2-0.3.fc36.src.rpm New scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75045865 Latest changes: * I removed the unversioned .so symlink, this is not meant to be a devel package. * Made the obsoletes version a bit more strict -- although I still left the release part using the macro since released versions of Fedora may still receive updates using the old package name and I don't want that to break upgrade paths. * On Fedora, systemd requires dbus-common so I would estimate the chances of dbus-common not being present on a user workstation as *extremely* small ;-) however I made the the requirement explicit
OK, I think that looks good. XXX APPROVED XXX
Thanks, repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36672
Package builds for F35 & F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75057103 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75057110
FEDORA-2021-c05baa3817 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c05baa3817
FEDORA-2021-c05baa3817 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c05baa3817 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c05baa3817 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-c05baa3817 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.